https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325100 Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) could not be taxed in the hands of a partnership firm that was not the registered shareholder of the payer-company, and there was no finding that the partners held the shares on the firm's behalf; the addition was deleted. In relation to a joint development arrangement, the security deposit did not accrue as business income in the relevant year because no conveyance had been executed and the licence to enter upon the land was granted only later, when the income was offered to tax. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:18:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325100 Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) could not be taxed in the hands of a partnership firm that was not the registered shareholder of the payer-company, and there was no finding that the partners held the shares on the firm's behalf; the addition was deleted. In relation to a joint development arrangement, the security deposit did not accrue as business income in the relevant year because no conveyance had been executed and the licence to enter upon the land was granted only later, when the income was offered to tax. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325100